The best thing that ever happened to Hillary was Edwards staying in the race

[Herman Munster]

A one-on-one contest where all the Hillary haters can rally around one person is not in Hillary's interest. As long as Edwards and Obama split the anti-Hillary voters, Hillary looks like she's in great shape to win the nomination.

[Radical Activist]

1. Except that the race

is essentially between Edwards and Obama. Hillary isn't popular enough in the early primary states to win.

[lvx35]

2. Where did you hear that?

All I've heard is Hillary leading and leading.

[Herman Munster]

4. many people at DU

refuse to belong to the reality based community.

All they are doing is fostering feelings of anger and resentment when their hopes get dashed and Hillary runs off with the nomination.

[iamjoy]

25. My "Resentment" For Hillary Clinton

Is not for her, but the media. Once again, they are trying to choose our candidate for us. They'll keep plugging and pushing her until she gets the nomination. Then, they will turn on her like a pit bull - sinking our chances of reclaiming the White House.

My resentment is also that it is so much about money rather than ideas. Hillary has a lot of powerful friends and is good at raising money, but that doesn't necessarily make her the best candidate.

Not personal, if she wins the nomination I will enthusiastically support her - unlike Kerry who I supported because I was more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry.

On the other hand, if the primary gets nasty, I may not be able to really support Clinton, I may just be against the Republican.

[Radical Activist]

5. National polls don't mean much.

I know it because I talk to enough Democrats in Iowa, and see the polls in Iowa, that it isn't too hard to figure out what's going to happen. Hillary will be lucky to win just one of the first four primary states. It will be all downhill from there. National polls don't mean a thing in the primary.

[lvx35]

7. I disagree, because I felt the same way about John Kerry.

But he took it, though I would have put my money on Dean. It felt like he was "chosen" for us. Hillary and Obama have the same feeling to me. Absolutely nothing with knock them out of the running.

[Radical Activist]

23. Hillary is more like Dean.

I don't mean on issues, but the fact that Hillary has the most money and is the media-declared front runner just like Dean was before the Iowa caucus. Dean's campaign deflated very quickly after he finished third in Iowa and didn't have any big victories soon after. I predict the same thing will happen to Hillary. Because she is the front runner she will be hurt badly when she loses Iowa.

Kerry won Iowa partly because he was extremely well organized there. If Hillary out-organizes the other campaigns with a good team on the ground then I could be proved wrong. But, Edwards and Obama have the advantage in both Iowa and South Carolina, which means she'll probably finish third in two out of the first four primary states. That means she has to win both New Hampshire and Nevada to remain a viable candidate.

[Herman Munster]

26. no hillary is not like dean

Hillary has all the establishment and democratic machine behind her. Dean was an outsider and his support was the grassroots.

Bad analogy.

[Radical Activist]

28. Dean had the most money and big endorsements.

I'm sure you don't like the comparison because the two are very different in other ways. However, Dean did have the most media coverage, the most money, and the most endorsements by late 2003. He still didn't win the nomination and those things won't guarantee the nomination for Hillary either.

[Herman Munster]

31. he was also undisciplined

Hillary would never do anything like the "Dean scream" for example. And even if she did, her war room would be on the ball the next morning saying how the microphone and sound was the problem.

[Selatius]

43. That's not believable at all. The infamous Dean Scream was completely overblown.

They love to harp on Dean until the cows come home for screaming like that, but they seem to love to omit that Dean was in a fucking aircraft hangar where it was hard for all the audience to hear him without him raising his voice. It was completely overblown, and I personally think the news media engaged in character assassination, especially after he floated the notion of anti-trust laws against corporate news consolidation.

[hedgehog]

46. You say tomato, I say tomahto

It's amazing how the description of candidates changes depending on who is talking. One person's candidate discipline and staying on message becomes another person's triangulation! I'd be happier if we had more stories telling us what any candidate had to say and fewer about what other people are saying about the candidates!

[blm]

50. The corpmedia hyped the scream story to cover up for their months of bad reporting

where THEY were the ones who had been under-reporting Kerry's numbers while over-reporting Dean's numbers.

To cover for the questions against their reporting ethics, they ginned up a "blame Dean for his campaign collapse" and used the scream to do it.

That way the media didn't have to explain how THEY had been getting it wrong for so long, or discuss Kerry's strength with veterans, firefighters and college students.

[Radical Activist]

52. ding

Right. The media over-hyped Dean for months. They realized he was more popular with reporters than he was with voters in the early primary states and compensated for that.

[lvx35]

29. You know, I do wonder.

I have an impression of Hillary that says she has deep corporate support, but at a policy level, she is harder on corporations in some ways than Obama. So you might be right. But one thing I do believe is that we are not organized at this point enough to undermine whichever candidate has the most corporate support in favor of a better one, and that is truly a shame.

[Radical Activist]

32. I'm not sure

how Hillary is harder than Obama on corporations.

But, you make a good point. We let the corporate donors and corporate media drive the entire primary last time. Dean supporters don't like to hear this but the fact is that he was given massive amounts of coverage by the corporate media that promoted his campaign. The media created Dean, and when he lost Iowa, they destroyed him. That entire primary was controlled by the media from start to finish, with the one surprise that Kerry was very well organized in Iowa. We need to start by breaking up the media monopolies and creating our own sources of information.

[lvx35]

35. energy.

Hillary's stance on oil companies packs a wallop I haven't seen from Obama.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/11.aspx
(its about 4/10 through.)

But yes, breaking the media monopolies is critical. But also just broader lifestyle changes need to occur. I don't know what it is exactly that needs to happen, but we've been isolated for far too long from each other in our communities. We're going to have to start learning how to live together and start talking or something.

[Adelante]

40. I looked over voting records not long ago

There's not a significant difference between Hillary and Edwards, when he was in the Senate, and Hillary and Obama now that he is in the Senate. I don't see much difference in "corporate support" either. If any candidates are to be criticized for corporate support, it might as well be equally applied or as you hint, not applied, since we're not in a position to do anything about it. I'm completely disgusted with campaign financing, in general, but over the top on the way this primary is going. It's horrifying to think how lost is our democracy.

[lvx35]

51. It is terrible indeed. It has been a nightmarish awakening for me the last several years.

Even the in-your-face things like campaign finance are just the visible front of the vast culture of corruption lying just beneath the surface. Right now real power is not in the hands of the people. If one of our candidates threated big Pharma or one of CNNs big sponsors, they would disappear from the polls when CNN ignored them. We are basically dealing with a Soviet style state controlled media except for the Internet. If they tell us Nixon and Reagan are at the top of the democratic primary polls, then the debate we will all be having will be about whether Nixon or Reagan is the better Dem candidate, and NONE of us will be in a position to question the popularity of these figures, or the extent to which their popularity is influenced by the media. Its disgraceful.

[blm]

41. Kerry had to work his ASS off because he WASN'T chosen, but HATED by the elites.

And especially the elites in the Dem party who helped to protect BushInc all these years.


Kerry had to finance HIMSELF the last two months of the primary campaign, while the corporate media LIED about the numbers on the ground in Iowa. The polls consistently under-reported Kerry's strength on the ground there while they over-reported Dean's numbers.

It was the veterans, the firefighters and the college students who helped Kerry win Iowa.

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. And it doesn't matter now because Kerry continues to be hated by the activst base

Who worship at the feet of Gore, an ex-DLC, current free-trader who deliberately refused Bush's offer to count every precinct in Florida, the only condition that would have legally precipitated a Gore win. Who's the sellout?

Dems think of these candidates what the media wants them to think.

E.g. Kerry is not a legitimate pro-troop Vietnam Vet like McCain and Hagel are, so his opinions on matters of war are irrelevant, etc.

The rank and file are led by the nose by uniform reporting on every person and every issue that tells them what is popular and what's not, what to think, what to disagree with, what issue is most important, all of which can turn on a dime overnight thanks to the well-oiled media machine. Even the "party elite" are mere puppets of the corporate media interests.

[ElizabethDC]

8. But she's also doing well in the individual state polls

not just national polls. She's polling 2nd behind Edwards in Iowa (although I believe they're tied in some polls) and is polling first in every other state - with the exception of New Mexico (b/c of Richardson) and maybe Illinois (b/c of Obama . . . but I'm not too sure about that last one).

[Radical Activist]

15. She isn't polling first in South Carolina or Iowa.

I haven't seen Nevada and New Hampshire polls lately, but I know they go back and forth. Some Iowa polls have her finishing third. Do you remember what happened to the front runner Dean when he finished third in Iowa? It was all over for him. Dean peaked early too.

[ElizabethDC]

21. But Hillary has been moving up in the Iowa polls recently

she was polling 4th a few weeks ago - now she's second in most polls, and in a statistical dead-heat with Edwards for first in others.

[Radical Activist]

24. The polls will fluctuate.

What doesn't change is that Edwards is already well known and liked in Iowa from '04. Obama is known there because he's next door and will have a ton of volunteers from Illinois to work the state. Iowa also has a strong pascifist tradition and was hard hit by Bill's free trade agreements, which makes it even harder for Hillary. Polls will go back and forth, but unless Edwards or Obama drop out, the best she can hope for in Iowa is third place.

[Herman Munster]

22. you don't understand that iowa changed when Vilsack left

He is endorsing her and will be campaiging for her over the next year. So his 10% or so went to her and that bumped her from 4th or 3rd to 2nd/1st.

[Radical Activist]

27. Vilsack was polling 3rd/4th in his home state.

That doesn't suggest he can swing the whole state. I'll grant that Hillary will now finish 3rd instead of 4th.

[Herman Munster]

11. I don't agree

She will have a $100 million warchest and will be able to compete in every state. Remember the primary season is compressed. 20+ states including California, New York, Florida will have primaries on Feb. 5th. Hillary will have money to compete in all of them regardless whatever happens. She's in it to the end.

[Radical Activist]

19. Dean had money too.

He stayed in it for a while even after he came in third in Iowa. Yes, Hillary will have the money to stay in the race even if she doesn't win the first few primaries. However, it will become far more difficult for her to gain support if she doesn't do well in the first four primary states. She'll have the money to stay in but that doesn't mean she'll win anything. It may only mean that the campaign will drag on and become embarrassing if she doesn't know when to drop out.

Hillary will probably finish third in both Iowa and South Carolina. How does the declared front runner bounce back from a defeat like that? Its an expectations issue, not a money issue.

[Herman Munster]

20. hillary and bill will go on 60 minutes

and talk about their marriage and she'll be the comeback kid.

That's how.

[Radical Activist]

33. lol

maybe. You think people will still buy that routine again?

[Herman Munster]

34. all I'm saying is

never underestimate the Clinton's! They will surprise you!

[mdmc]

44. lol

I wish it were true. The truth is no one can stop the Clintons. In NYS for instance, I doubt Obama or Edwards will be able to get their delegates on the ballot statewide. Only Howard Dean was able to do it in 2004 (both Edwards and Kerry failed to get enough signatures. Kerry filed flawed (not enough signatures) petitions, and was not challenged.

Hillary already has the whole party behind her in NYS, for the most part.

[sandnsea]

3. Hillary has peaked

The winner will be the one who can appeal to a broad coaliton of Democrats seeking change.

[Horse with no Name]

6. Thank you for your sanity

:hug:

[sandnsea]

10. oh my goodness

Will you sign an affidavit?!?

I will carry it around and wave it in front of people's faces - yuh huh I'm sane and I have a paper that says so.

:rofl:

[lvx35]

9. How has she peaked?

There is one single question here: Does "peaked" mean she is out of money? If not, she hasn't peaked. She has deep pockets.

[sandnsea]

14. She isn't moving up

Despite all the money and all the endorsements, she isn't moving. She's got what she's going to get. She's peaked.

[ElizabethDC]

17. Well, it depends where the undecideds go

and there are still a lot of them left . . . so it's not inconceivable for her to go up (and the same goes for the other candidates, of course), even if she hasn't shown any movement recently. I just think it's too early to say that anyone has peaked.

[Radical Activist]

30. The undecideds

already know all they will ever know about Hillary. Everyone knows who she is and they know a lot about her. If they were ever going to support her, they already would be.

[Colobo]

12. We'll see what happens

Obama and Edwards have not peaked yet, while Hillary has. Also, and not to sound gloomy, but I'm not completely sure Edwards will be able to remain in the race for long, and that would be a real pity, because that man is a helluva candidate. I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

[Herman Munster]

16. Hillary has peaked?

Look at the latest Iowa polls. She's up big. Basically all of Vilsacks support went to her and she went from 4th to tied for 1st with Edwards.

[ElizabethDC]

18. This is true

she has moved up in Iowa - which is the only significant primary state where she hasn't been on top in the polls.

[mmonk]

13. The best thing that ever happened to Edwards was Hillary staying in the race.

A one-on-one contest where all the Edwards haters can rally around one person is not in Edwards's interest. As long as Hillary and Obama split the anti-Edwards voters, Edwards looks like he's in great shape to win the nomination.

[AshevilleGuy]

36. I like your version better. n/t

[ContraBass Black]

37. The best thing that ever happened to Obama was Hillary and Edwards staying in the race.

A one-on-one contest where all the Obama haters can rally around one person is not in Obama's interest. As long as Hillary and Edwards split the anti-Obama voters, Obama looks like he's in great shape to win the nomination.

[JNelson6563]

42. you and mmonk make a good point

Only a fool would try to call it this early. If I recall, around this time for the 04 race, wasn't Lieberman lookin' good?

Julie

[saltpoint]

38. Things are fluid this early. A strong case has been made for those

three, and could be made for other Democrats in the race now, or who are possible contenders later on.

These folks are smart and they surround themselves with some of the smartest people in the business.

I just wouldn't count anybody out this early.

[sniffa]

39. that's not a good thing

[mod mom]

45. The best thing for the country is Edwards staying in the race.

Sorry, but I could easily support either Edwards or Obama, although hoping Gore steps in. I would hit the pavement & organize like I did in '04 for any of the three (E, O or G) but I will NOT support Hillary, will not work for her and will not vote for her.

[mnhtnbb]

47. Gore or Edwards or Obama. Never Hillary for me. Retirement to Panama

will become a certainty if Hillary is nominated because it means the R's will keep the White House.

[mitchtv]

53. Good luck with your GOP president

that kind oftalk is unbecomming a Dem. I do not support HRC but if she wins the nod... she gets my vote

[Clark2008]

48. Well, it's not best for me.

I don't much are for either one of them because neither one will beat the Republican.

You guys really don't know much about purple and red states around here. Or, if you do happen to live in one, many of you seem to live in blue bubbles.

I listen to local talk radio, talk to people who aren't Democrats (or Republicans) and hear their comments. None of our "front runners" are very popular in the states we need to flip in order to win.